Open letter to Mr. Wyn Becker

May 6, 2008

American Furniture, Electronics & Appliances
2404 W. Beltline Hwy.
Madison, WI 53713

Attn: Mr. Wyn Becker
Vice President-Advertising

Dear Mr. Becker,

I couldn't help but notice your e-mail of May 5 to Milwaukee radio "personality" Charlie Sykes announcing your intention to disassociate American's corporate self from the July 24 appearance of humorist Bill Maher in our fair city. I'm writing to express my disappointment that your firm so quickly buckled under to the claimed offense taken by so few politically motivated and highly disingenuous individuals.

Several months ago, Mr. Sykes embroiled himself in a controversy over the "Coexist" bumper stickers. Perhaps you've seen them around town. The word "Coexist" is spelled out in a pictogram, using a variety of religious symbols. An area man devised a "parody" of the bumper sticker which, among other things, replaced the Jewish Star of David with a Nazi Swastika and the Crescent of Islam with the Soviet Hammer and Sickle.

Mr. Sykes published the "parody" bumper sticker on his website, which is maintained by Journal Communications, Inc. A number of individuals and groups, most notably the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee, took issue with the said "parody." Mr. Sykes, however, expended a considerable amount of resources in defending the "parody," going so far as to label it a work of "genius" and to cry righteously in favor of the parodist's — and his own — right to unfettered expression, regardless of the offense caused.

You may know by now that the entire Bill Maher "controversy" was manufactured by a Marquette University professor by the name of John McAdams. Prof. McAdams writes an internet journal, where he affords us the opportunity to gain insight into his fevered thought processes.

It's fair to say that Prof. McAdams is extremely intolerant of his political opponents, and especially against those who he only imagines to be his nemeses. He's actually something of an unintentional joke to many of us who follow the Wisconsin "blogosphere." To be sure, nowhere near as funny and incisive as
Bill Maher, but moderately entertaining on occasion.

In short, Prof. McAdams is a notorious local crank.

After Prof. McAdams learned of Mr. Maher's engagement at Milwaukee's historic Riverside Theatre, he became quite personally disconsolate, and published a series of scurrilous and unsupportable accusations against Mr. Maher. Some of us were puzzled by Prof. McAdams's initial reaction.

Among the reasons we were puzzled is that only days prior to becoming upset by Mr. Maher's Riverside Theatre engagement, Prof. McAdams had adamantly defended the Milwaukee appearance of another somewhat controversial figure, David Horowitz, a harsh critic of both U.S. academia (as is Prof. McAdams) and certain aspects of the Islamic religion (as is Prof. McAdams).

David Horowitz spoke at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. When some Muslim students at UWM criticized Mr. Horowitz for offending their religious beliefs, Prof. McAdams, on his weblog, arbitrarily and capriciously brushed aside the students' concerns, suggesting that their offense was merely feigned.

Prof. McAdams also took issue with some vocal demonstrators who attended Mr. Horowitz's speech, and has since erratically and irresponsibly (and, of course, ironically) accused "leftists" of being "authoritarians who want to shut up speech they disagree with."

But then Prof. McAdams found two or three far-right websites containing a number of statements made by Mr. Maher on the subject of religion (Mr. Maher, like millions of other Americans, is not a fan), but removed from their original context in either comic monologues or conversations with his guests on his HBO program, Real Time with Bill Maher.

Prof. McAdams then claimed to be personally offended by those statements. Interestingly, since the statements referenced Prof. McAdams's own chosen religion, he was not so quick to dismiss his own reaction in the same manner he had dismissed those of the aforementioned Muslim students in reaction to David Horowitz.

Indeed, Prof. McAdams vigorously defended Mr. Horowitz's right to offend, just as Charlie Sykes had vigorously defended the offensive potential of the Nazi Swastika and the Soviet Hammer and Sickle (and in particular the substitution of the Nazi Swastika for the Jewish Star of David).

And it was from Prof. McAdams that Charlie Sykes learned of Prof. McAdams's baseless tirades against Bill Maher, whereupon Mr. Sykes reproduced Prof. McAdams's intemperate ravings at his own website, where they presumably found a marginally wider audience.

It's also worth noting that Prof. McAdams considered voicing his personal objections to the other sponsors of Mr. Maher's engagement, but ultimately determined that they would be unresponsive to his pleas. So he targeted his personal ire at American Furniture, Electronics & Appliances instead.

Prof. McAdams has taken it upon himself to decide what is and what is not appropriate speech, and even wrote that your company "ought to be more careful" about avoiding "embarrassment" if your company "wants to sell stuff to Christians." Perhaps I missed it, but I could find no evidence on your company's website that it specifically "wants to sell stuff to Christians."

I think you might also be interested in Prof. McAdams's characterization of your company and its employees — who, to my mind, are doubtless good and hard working people — that he expressed while determining his personal course of action, and just prior to receiving his personal satisfaction as expressed in your e-mail to Charlie Sykes.

Prof. McAdams compared your firm's sponsorship of Mr. Maher's engagement to its supporting "a Klan rally" and claimed that American was "either stupid or bigoted against Christians." So he quite obviously could not have thought very highly of your company to begin with. I seriously doubt whether you or your employees are "either stupid or bigoted against Christians."

As for myself, I had thought highly of your company. In fact I have made a number of substantial household purchases there, as have many of my friends and acquaintances. We have always been very satisfied with our purchases, and the kind service we received.

But if American is in the business of kowtowing to shamelessly hypocritical actors like Charlie Sykes and John McAdams, then we won't be shopping at American anymore.

Sincerely,

John McAdams's school of scholarly scholarship

Indeed, given Sonia Sotomayor's liberal views, it would be odd if she were not a racist and sexist.

— John "La Raza" McAdams

Marquette University's own nutty professor John McAdams has concocted an hilariously incoherent attack against Prof. Jodi O'Brien, the Catholic scholar and would-be dean of academics whose job offer was rescinded by Marquette this week.

Marquette says O'Brien's writings contain negative statements about marriage and family, and yesterday canceled an interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "saying this was now a legal situation."

McAdams, on the other hand, is unbound by such circumspection.

McAdams claims to have reviewed "every single article" in O'Brien's bibliography and concludes mockingly that her area of expertise is in "victim studies," which is a vintage McAdams buffoonery in addition to being a crass political exercise in poisoning the well.

▪ Incidentally I'm sure Dr. O'Brien would find McAdams endlessly fascinating in her capacity as a clinical social scientist, and it's hoped he may appear in an anecdotal "vignette" in some future "victim study" (with McAdams standing for the victim archetype, of course).

Anyway, "every single article" that is, right up until the point where McAdams (or "we," as he refers Royally to himself) admits that he "lack[s] the stomach to extensively examine this kind of literature."

You see, he's also intellectually fearless, in the Jesuitical tradition.

So since he (they?) hasn't actually examined it to any substantive degree, McAdams instead charges that Prof. O'Brien's scholarship is "mediocre" because it hasn't appeared through what he calls "top-level" publishers, none of whom he cares to enumerate.

Which is amusing because of the three articles McAdams provides ("at random" from among dozens, he says: Yeah, right) one appears in Sexualities, a journal of Sage Publications, one is in an anthology put out by Routledge, a preeminent social sciences publisher of international renown, and the third is from the Seattle Journal for Social Justice, an imprint of the Seattle University School of Law.

That's McAdams's entire case: his (their?) admittedly groundless invective, oblivious that SU ranks among the top 100 law schools.

As for Marquette Law School, which is attached to the institution McAdams is fearlessly defending against Prof. O'Brien's "mediocre" scholarship, sadly, it's unranked: Tier 3. McAdams rarely fails to entertain (the reasons for which he's most likely completely unaware), but his own credibility is in almost tragically short supply.

McAdams might have been on to something had he been comparing The Botanical Review with High Times. Except he isn't, at all.

However, McAdams's special gift for unwittingly demolishing his own rigorously crafted arguments remains second to none, top-tier.

Finally, McAdams decides the O'Brien affair is an "embarrassment" to Marquette University. On that account, he sure as hell ain't helping.

Because believe it or not, he teaches political science there.

Photo illustration: I'm huntin' wascawwy wesbians.

McAdams red-lines the spin tachometer

This is hilarious.

Some time ago, a reporter asked Barack Obama whether, if he is elected president, his administration would investigate alleged criminal acts by the Bushies related to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In response to the hypothetical question, Obama was careful to distinguish between disagreeable policy and actual, substantive crimes. This was clear to competent readers of English.

Several months later, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel "right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran completely ignored Obama's own response and fantasized that the Bush administration would be criminally prosecuted simply for poor policy decisions, and even desperately suggested that Obama's Department of Justice will prosecute "things" that were not even crimes, a truly remarkable feat.

We all had a good laugh about it here and here.

Yesterday, the comically oblivious John C. McAdams, an actual professor of political science at Marquette University who routinely demeans the intellectual competence of his academic colleagues — a textbook case of a pot calling the kettle black — repeated McIlheran's nonsense pretty much verbatim.

Challenged by a number of commenters at his blog to address Obama's clear statements, McAdams instead derided them for suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome," a phony diagnosis fabricated by the irascible Faux News "expert" Charles Krauthammer to assist conservatives in avoiding responding to legitimate criticisms of the current Republican administration.

Now, challenged by several more, McAdams still resists engaging plain English and posits that Obama (whose name McAdams can't even spell correctly) be investigated for "possible connections with terrorists" and calls the commenters "Bush bashers," even though all any of them did was ask McAdams to actually read what Obama said.

"If [Obama] broke the law, he definitely should be punished, don't you think?" says McAdams, despite that being not only essentially what Obama had said in response to the Philly.com reporter's original question, but precisely what McAdams's own interlocutors are asking of him and which he refuses to answer.

Does Allen-Bradley make an explosion-proof irony meter? If so, Professor John C. McAdams is in dire need of one.

Lest anyone finds it damn nigh impossible, as I do, to believe that John McAdams is really a university professor of political science, here is evidence.

It's a good thing for McAdams that Marquette maintains that webpage, because there certainly isn't any such evidence at McAdams's personal blog but rather much to mitigate against it.

He does, however, perform a hell of a job in demonstrating the expression "political science" to be a contradiction in terms.

The comedy stylings of John McAdams

Milwaukee's funniest blogger, John McAdams, is upset with the National Association of Hispanic Journalists' style guide.

Conveniently ignoring the NAHJ's prefatory remarks, which correctly point out that "being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime," McAdams accuses the journalists of "trying to ban the word 'illegal,'" which, McAdams further claims, is "simply an insistence that honest language be avoided."

Unfortunately for McAdams, who is reportedly a professor at Marquette University, the journalists have it right and McAdams has it exactly backwards. It's accuracy that the NAHJ is seeking.

Needless to say, the NAHJ's discussion is considerably more nuanced and informed than McAdams's typically hamfisted denunciations.

For example, millions of immigrants entered the country with valid visas, but now those visas are expired. It is not a crime to be in the United States on an expired visa.

As a matter of fact one of the initial steps in a deportation proceeding is the issuance of a Notice to Appear at a hearing at which a non-citizen may present argument explaining her situation. They are not arrested, which is often what happens to people who have committed a crime.

Not even the legal immigrants who might be subject to deportation for having been convicted of a crime are arrested for being potentially subject to deportation. Rather, like it or not, they are protected by a considerable body of law.

To hell with all that, says McAdams, just be "honest" — like him — and call them "illegals" whether they've done something illegal or not.

Best of all, McAdams is actually more concerned about referring to immigrants as "aliens," a federal statutory term of art, because this one time he saw a scary looking extraterrestrial creature chase Sigourney Weaver around a spaceship. Not a Mexican.

Finally, for some obscure reason known only to the fevered consciousness of John McAdams, he appeals for more Christians and honest blacks to become reporters as opposed to dishonest blacks like the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Eugene Kane.

If the Riverside Theatre is looking for an opening act for Bill Maher next week, McAdams would be the perfect choice.

The John McAdams Comedy Hour

I knew this was going to be entertaining as all hell.

Marquette University's in-house purveyor of double standards and false dichotomies John McAdams is on the warpath, incensed that American TV is sponsoring Bill Maher's July 24 appearance at the Riverside Theatre in Milwaukee (tickets go on sale today).

McAdams knee-jerkingly deploys his favorite word, "bigot," accuses Bill Maher of "hating Christians," and links to a number of professional offense-takers, including Wild Bill Donohue of something called the "Catholic League" and Donald Wildmon, a fruitcake fundamentalist preacher/censor of considerable vintage and idiocy.

Pretty much every statement Donald Wildmon and the other poor offended religious souls have lifted from Bill Maher's comic monologues can be summarized by this instructive line of Mahatma Gandhi's: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians."

Does that make Gandhi a bigot who hated Christians too?

Now this morning McAdams is appalled and outraged that a "leftie blogger" found it "encouraging" that a number of university students were ejected for demonstrating at a speaking engagement by wingnut idol David Horowitz in town last week. But only two days ago, McAdams asserted that Bill Maher's First Amendment rights would not be abridged "if people demonstrate against him."

Also this morning, in reply to a comment inspired by his already ridiculously overheated condemnations of Bill Maher, McAdams compares the comedian to the Ku Klux Klan* (yes, they of burning, terrorizing, murdering, and lynching in the name of God fame) and wonders if the commenter "has a problem" with businesses that sponsor Maher's Milwaukee appearance being "either stupid or bigoted against Christians."

But not being, you know, businesses, and seeking a competitive advantage by associating themselves with a very popular entertainer.

John McAdams is a university professor. Thankfully, not of logic.

As an added John McAdams comedy bonus, consider the following typically McAdamian addlepated and confused syllogism, deposited in Rick Esenberg's blog the other day:

I'm always amused at the leftists who complain that conservatives are "anti-science" if we believe in Intelligent Design.

The obvious response could not be resisted:

"Believing" in "intelligent design" does not necessarily lead to being "anti-science."

One may hammer away at "believing" in ID on the internets with one's 4.8GHz notebook connected to the WiFi station in the doctor's office while waiting for a flu shot developed according to evolutionary principles.

In fact, many do.

McAdams probably didn't get it anyway.

Stop asking Jim Caviezel religious questions. He just played Jesus in a movie. It's like asking a cast member of Scrubs to lance a boil. Why, if everyone on TV was really like the character he plays, no one at church would talk to me, my wife, or my eight kids. — Bill Maher, New Rules, p. 157.

* At the Klan's website, a letter "From the desk of the Imperial Kludd" begins, "Greetings to all in the Holy Name of Yahshua, Jesus Christ," and implores "white Christians to open their eyes and allow their hearing to be operational once again." But Bill Maher is the bigot.

eta 1: GMTA.

eta 2: folkbum.

eta 3: Dénouement.

The blog Warrior

I notice from one of the widgets that the esteemed Marquette University professor and self-appointed internets "warrior" John McAdams has linked to this here blog as an example of "raw anti-Christian bigotry." Apparently McAdams came across the website of Richard Dawkins, and found a comment string attached to some article, containing something or other McAdams finds objectionable.

I can only imagine what, since I haven't bothered to read it. Frankly, what offends John McAdams interests me not at all.

But I know Richard Dawkins primarily for his brilliant writings on evolutionary biology, and not so much as a "famous atheist," which is how McAdams describes him. Further to the comment string at Dawkins's website, McAdams hallucinates:

But the comments aren't that different from opinions expressed in the liberal blogosphere in Wisconsin. Check particularly Hermes' Journeys and Illusory Tenant.

Particularly! Almost needless to say, McAdams's hopeless attempt to smear me as a "bigot" made me laugh out loud, so I deposited the following in his own thread:

Oy vey, such laughable histrionics and hyperbole. I challenge you to cite an instance of "raw anti-Christian bigotry" on my blog.

Anybody who's read it knows that I'm a non-subscriber to superstition and fairy tales, which I've characterized as exactly that. Big deal. That's hardly "bigotry," raw or cooked.

Additionally, any intelligent observer — like, for example, a university professor — will notice that my criticisms are directed at those who use religion for political, financial, or other material ends.

I've also criticized those who hide their religion for political purposes, e.g., the latest incarnation of creationists.

I probably have more respect for the admonitions attributed to Jesus than most so-called Christians, certainly those hypocrites one encounters in the press and online on a nearly daily basis.

If I recall correctly, Jesus wasn't a real big fan of hypocrites either. So, think of me as doing the Lord's Work.

McAdams certainly hasn't gotten any less ridiculous lately.

P.S. I still harbor a profound disappointment that no local wingnut publicized my misogyny/misandry/what-have-you for depicting Ann Coulter trundling her enormous testicles around in a wheelbarrow.

P.P.S. Oh look, Patrick McIlheran's favorite wingnut blogger describes Mike Huckabee's Christian supporters as "simple minded idiots" on the grounds they are Christians favoring a Christian.

*McCrickets chirping*

A proud moment for dissembling hypocrites

Noted staunch defender of free speech John McAdams (so long as the speech at issue is personally acceptable to John McAdams, that is) now claims he's convinced an American TV executive to pull the firm's logo from Bill Maher flyers. Still boorishly and ignorantly asserting that Bill Maher "openly hates Christians," McAdams once again proves that if you lie enough about something, enough people will believe you, a dictum most recently reinforced with particularly alarming effect during the Wisconsin Supreme Court election campaign.

Now for a heartwarming little love letter.

Dear Charlie [and Johnny (supposedly)],

We regret if our advertising co-sponsorship participation of the upcoming Bill Maher concert has [supposedly] offended [John McAdams and Charlie Sykes].

It is obvious, now, to us that Mr. Maher is a very opinionated political and social humorist who can easily ruffle the feathers [supposedly] of [John McAdams and Charlie Sykes] much more so than we expected.

Because this particular show has become much more [supposedly] controversial to [John McAdams and Charlie Sykes] than ever anticipated, we have chosen to drop our sponsorship of this particular event, if it is indeed [supposedly] offending [John McAdams and Charlie Sykes].

[Yours (supposedly) offendedly,]
Wyn Becker
Vice President-Advertising
American Furniture, Electronics & Appliances

Hey, Plaisted, buy your couch somewhere else.

[David] Horowitz is a highly controversial speaker, since he says things that are considered "offensive" (supposedly) to Muslim students. — John McAdams ("quotes" his, bold mine)

Mark that: considered "offensive" (supposedly) to Muslims.

Unbelievable. Even less so than God.

John McAdams, Despot of all Media

His Kampf: We Want The Airwaves.

To paraphrase the late great Graham Chapman, the old fool's got a persecution complex you could elect a pope in.

And Bill Maher is not an atheist. If McAdams wants to discuss religion, then why doesn't he? Because he can't. He doesn't even know what an atheist is, or how many believers despise organized religion every bit as much as Bill Maher does. Inter alia.

McAdams has much to learn, even as he thinks he knows it all. As a matter of fact, McAdams could learn a lot about religion from atheists. In many, many cases, they've studied it in considerably greater depth than have its actual adherents.

Because when it comes to the Bible, not believing in it leads to the most accurate scholarship and understanding. And I'm thinking just a bit more Baruch Spinoza than Bill Maher here.

What does McAdams think Jesus would have thought of all the farces and tragedies perpetrated in the name of religion? Or in his name, especially. Like Dostoevsky said, if Jesus came back to earth, the priests and the politicians would throw him in jail immediately, where he couldn't cause any more trouble.

Has McAdams ever heard Bill Maher criticize the ethical and moral teachings of Christ? Of course he hasn't. Maher's point — and it's certainly nothing novel or even remarkable — is that many people who call themselves Christians, in particular the loudest of the loud in this country, don't follow Christ's teachings at all.

They're called hypocrites, and Jesus wasn't much fond of them either.

Unfortunately you'd have to hit the university professor McAdams over the head with a solid gold tabernacle to induce him to see even that most glaring obviousity.

capper's got a point too. Marquette University's sports teams aren't called the Warriors anymore because it went out with a bunch of other nicknames that were considered offensive to Native Americans. But neither McAdams nor Charlie Sykes give a Ratz's ass if or when somebody else is offended.

And the Hitler Youth was a Nazi paramilitary outfit.

Blogging while white

One of the funniest guys on the Milwaukee internets is John McAdams, who is apparently a professor of political science at Marquette University. McAdams tells the tale of a philosophy student being "forced" to apologize by his instructor for comments made during a class discussion on law enforcement and ethnicity.

Personally, I don't think university instructors should "force" students to apologize for comments made during class discussions, if that is really what happened.

I remember a discussion in one of my own political science classes at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee a few years ago during which a student insisted that gay people were really heterosexual, and that homosexuality was a deliberate and conscious choice on their part. I remarked that if that were true, then I would have chosen it back when I was about 15, because I would have gotten laid a hell of a lot more (since anything is more than none).

When the laughter had died down (which was what I was after, obviously, humor being often the best means to the end of making a point), the instructor chastised me mildly for implying that gay people were more promiscuous than any other group, and that I was reinforcing an invidious stereotype. Of course I was aware of that already, and that was indeed part of the joke. And I'm sure those laughing the heartiest were the gay students in the class.

Anyway, the hapless McAdams can barely get through three paragraphs without contradicting himself. First the "forced" apology becomes a "suggested" one. Then McAdams gives away the game by revealing a little agenda of his own, in that his central defense of the student in question turns on the McAdams-endorsed truism that the "truculent attitudes of many minorities are part of the problem."

Quips McAdams parenthetically:

Two of the blacks in class complained about how they had been stopped because of their race (although they had not been asked to get out of their cars, had not been ticketed and their cars had not been searched).

Well, hey, ain't nothing wrong with getting pinched for driving while black, so long as the cops don't shoot 'em, eh Perfesser?

Why anybody takes this character seriously is a complete mystery to me. One who does, predictably, is local vocal yokel and obnoxious crusader for (almost) all things "politically incorrect," Charlie Sykes, who this morning labels McAdams's poorly disguised tribute to our munificent Caucasian overlords as today's "hot read."

It's a hot read alright — for the yuks.

McAdams paranoia update

Prof. John McAdams, who allegedly instructs his students in the discipline of political "science" at Marquette University, has gone 'round the twist over some Christian group which was apparently temporarily denied something or other by some school for not adequately conforming to that school's policies.

Knees jerking uncontrollably, Prof. McAdams lashes out at a beloved boogeyman, "Anti-Christian Bigotry!!!1" and continues by hooting, "There HAS TO BE an active animus against Christians here."

Yes, there simply has to be! What else could possibly explain it?!

One would indeed be hard pressed to discover a more impressive demonstration of a phenomenon understood in the academic trades as confirmation bias.

Not only that, but this clearly discernible "active animus" is "extremely common" among college bureaucrats, sez the political "scientist," doubtless relying on the peer-reviewed literature.

Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, Prof. McAdams's link to the relevant Faux News report also contains reference to the following helpful study, which itself has evidently thus far gone unheeded:

Because the more effective ones evacuate bugs also.

More McAdams here.

John McAdams affirms WRtL broke the law

Reports Today's TMJ-4:

"This is slightly different, in that, it was paying people to cast absentee ballots, but not paying the voters to cast absentee ballots," said Marquette Political Science Professor John McAdams.

What expertise John McAdams brings to a legal question gawd only knows, but he manages to make the argument better than I could.

I mean, assuming "people," like corporations, are persons. Read that one more time: What Wisconsin Right to Life did, says John McAdams, is pay people to cast absentee ballots, but as long as it didn't pay voters to cast absentee ballots, WRtL is free and clear. And remember, this guy is a university professor, widely quoted as an authority in the local press.

Who can't possibly be listening to a word he says, which are gibberish.

May the saints preserve us.

A decision could come as soon as Tuesday morning.

Okay so I was off by 24 hours.

Enjoy some vintage McAdams: I'm huntin' wascawwy wesbians.

McGift keeps on McGiving

"Nice to watch you lefties rally around Maher. It lets us Christians know where your hearts are." — McAdams

No "leftie" Christians, apparently. Only "us" Christians. Nice.

"Deep in the hearts of all the lefties is an authoritarian who wants to shut up speech they disagree with." — McAdams

Sheeshzeus. Miss the point much?

Courtesy folkbum's comments thread.

See also: American TV conned by whiny hypocrite.

I've half a mind to give Mr. Becker a little jingle tomorrow meself. Remind him that John McAdams thinks he's "either stupid or bigoted against Christians." Time to join the club, Wyn Becker!

And speaking of comment threads, McAdams has one going where he introduces the subject of homosexuals and then when he gets called on the ridiculous comparison, McAdams chastises the commenters, 'This thread isn't about homosexuals, please stay on topic.'

rofl

John McAdams: FAIL

The blogger at From Where I Sit asks:

Being an agnostic, I find this observation by John McAdams at Marquette Warrior interesting:

But not believing in God doesn’t change the fact that people have a deep desire to feel righteous, to feel clean and redeemed and right with God — or with something equivalent to God.

What do you think, does he have a point?

No. People who don't believe in God pretty clearly don't have desires to feel right (or wrong) with something they don't believe in. Nor do they seek redemption from non-existent saviors. And, obviously, aspirations to righteousness and cleanliness don't need to have anything to do with God at all. The latter has more to do with shampoo and laundry detergent.

As for "something equivalent to God," when the believers arrive at anything approaching consensus with respect to the alleged attributes of God (which will be never*), then maybe we can talk. Not even the Bible is consistent when it comes to describing said attributes.

McAdams is doing nothing more than projecting and, furthermore, it's the height of fatuousness to claim insights as to the "deep desires" of atheists, or anyone else for that matter, let alone portray those insights as "fact." Prove it.

One thing we can all — figuratively speaking, of course — thank God for is that Prof. McAdams isn't teaching theology. Or logic.

* Case in point.

Where's McAdams now?

John McAdams, the risibly cantankerous political science professor and "Marquette Warrior" who memorably leveled the unsubstantiated charge of "raw anti-Christian bigotry" against this here blog, must be asleep at the switch today.

Because at another local blog, which McAdams celebrates as "Highly Recommended," there currently resides a link to a photo-animation featuring a dog, on which is pasted the cartoon head of Mohammed, enthusiastically rogering a pig from behind.

The same linked page describes the Qur'an as a "Camel-fellating, Donkey-buggering Classic." And no, I'm not linking to it from here.

But you can easily find it from Prof. McAdams's blog, under "Highly Recommended." Personally I don't recommend it at all.

John McAdams, obsessed with lesbians

"Lesbian ... lesbian ... lesbian ..."

This appears to confirm our [sic] inference that O’Brien was the designated lesbian affirmative action candidate for the [College of Arts and Sciences] deanship, moved forward by liberal faculty and administrators who viewed her appointment as a move toward "diversity" at Marquette.

Typically brilliant analysis by McAdams, who is a Marquette University professor of political science. If McAdams is correct, that Jodi O'Brien was offered an employment contract because she is a lesbian, then it may follow that it was rescinded for the same reason, which wouldn't bode well for Marquette's legal defense, should one be required.

Fortunately nobody takes McAdams seriously. Except P. McIlheran.

Big Gay News with your host, Prof. McAdams

John McAdams, a celebrated professor of political science (yes, science) at Marquette University, divines the ugly truth about criminal penalty enhancers during his weekend perusal of Europe's largest gay news service. Penalty enhancers, avers Prof. McAdams, "target preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality." Gay fascism, quoth he.

Seriously.

Speaking of Marquette professors ...

Indeed, given Sonia Sotomayor's liberal views, it would be odd if she were not a racist and sexist.

— John "La Raza" McAdams

Not anywhere near as odd as Juan McAdams failing to say something incredibly idiotic. Thank the gods I got my undergrad degree at UWM.

May the Hispanic matriarchy continue to oppress Prof. McAdams.

American Presents! John McAdams

John "Perfesser" McAdams's appearance is part of a yearlong series of comedy blog posts which American TV co-sponsors with Marquette University and 620 AM WTMJ.

Obama May Prosecute Bush Administration For War Crimes

And don't you dare attempt to question McAdams's delusions, lest he personally diagnoses you with "Bush Derangement Syndrome," always a compelling rebuttal. This guy is an actual university professor.

Hard to believe.

A reminder for the blog "Warrior"

Further to this episode, a memory jog for Prof. McAdams:



Since then immediately published but awaiting moderation.

McAdams appears to have had occasion to assemble a number of his trademark cantankerous ditherings since four days ago, but hasn't quite found a moment to engage the challenge of supporting his accusations of "naked anti-Christian bigotry." Of course he won't find any such "bigotry" here, let alone anything to conform with his outlandish "black guy at a Klan rally" analogy, but you'd think he'd at least have the gumption to admit he was very, very mistaken.

He wouldn't be much of a "blog Warrior" otherwise, would he.

McAdams takes on ladies' underwear

It's been awhile since I've checked in with local professor and crankpot John McAdams to see what he's upset about. Today's outrage: t-shirts and baggy sweatpants with college logos.

"It’s disgraceful and appalling," said Boston College graduate C.J. Doyle, who runs the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. "This is just one more example of the university’s callous contempt for Catholic sensibilities and its complete indifference to what remains of its Catholic identity."

This is what they're on about, if you can believe that. Unless "Catholic sensibilities" means 'You must be nuts to pay 55 bucks plus tax for a hooded sweatshirt,' in which case, Bless me Father.

You can have a look at Victoria's Secret's horrifying and blasphemous collection of university-themed items here. (Work- and school-safe.)

Full disclosure: This post composed whilst clad only in boxer shorts.